It's Amazing What Outsiders Come Up With...
Upon deciding to check out the 60's rock group I am a member of here, I encountered a link to http://antispamnow.livejournal.com/ where a "theory" of the murder of Jim Morrison was offered. I quickly realized I needed to reply, and posted this there:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not really responding to "goldenrod21" as much as I am placing this as close to the top as I can because of the importance of clarifications I'd like to quickly make here. To further draw attention, I am inserting a pic of Jim seldom seem since I published it in 1968:
There's no information here identifying whom its author "antispamnow" is, but I find the handle rather curious and (in amusement of sorts) I wonder if he was a spammer previously. I also strongly suspect that his credentials are as simple as that he may be a younger fan who has read a lot of books and has an inclination to get very creatively imaginative. No offense meant, but his forte here is more akin to fiction than investigative reporting.
However, early on, the fallacy of this "theory" is nakedly exposed with the declaration that "It’s not very difficult to notice that all these versions sound different, which means that none of the above never actually took place." That's really quite a leap. Ever seen Akira Kurosawa's movie "Roshomon"? Different recollections do not invalidate the fact that there may indeed be some collective truths.
More importantly, I wasn't there. But there are some contradictory facts which I am very aware of:
1) Only in recent years have I heard of Jim's death having been "kept secret" for several days. I have no idea what the source of this misinfo is, but I know that on July 4, 1971, I already had heard of it. After our concert of Frank Zappa & The Mothers of Invention / Uproar at the Centre Paul Sauve in Montreal on that Sunday night, Frank and I stayed up all night discussing all sorts of things, including the irony that when I promoted him in Western Canada the previous September, Jimi Hendrix died then, and now my friend Jim was gone. The news of Jim's death was not delivered to me by The Doors office, which was closed until the following day. It had to have been on the news.
2) Perhaps it's different in other parts of the world, but I know of no Christian customs that call for burial on the third day nor that a church service is required to have an open coffin.
3) Bill Siddons may have been young, but he was of a generation which deplored both dishonesty and corrupted authority. I can't see him having been manipulated by any French officials into any conspiracy covering up any murder of Jim,
4) Jim's death was a shock to all of us. He had basically freed himself from the trap of having become a rock sex symbol and had gone to Paris excited with the artistic freedoms he now had at hand. Pamela had every right to refer to him as a writer. During his last year of life, it was clear to me that Jim's interests had moved beyond the trappings of just being a rock star. His last night in Los Angeles he told me how much he was looking forward to writing and doing more literary styled recordings and film-making as well.
Suicide was certainly out of the question. Despite the depictions of Jim as a drunkard towards the end in Oliver Stone's movie, he was sober, reflective and very observant with bigger ambitions whenever we were in contact. Yes, we shared some beers, grass and another substance which he had turned me on to, but I never saw the extraordinary out-of-it Jim of legend.
The outright speculations of Jim having been shot to death is no more than that. Speculations, from one who wasn't there and has no foundation that can support this.
Yes, I have my own suspicions of what killed Jim, but they are only that, suspicions, despite my good reasons for suspecting what I do.
"antispamnow" should apply himself to either facts or fiction that does not corrupt facts.
Please excuse any typos, I have written this straight-on late at night.
My best wishes to all,
Hank Zevallos
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not really responding to "goldenrod21" as much as I am placing this as close to the top as I can because of the importance of clarifications I'd like to quickly make here. To further draw attention, I am inserting a pic of Jim seldom seem since I published it in 1968:
There's no information here identifying whom its author "antispamnow" is, but I find the handle rather curious and (in amusement of sorts) I wonder if he was a spammer previously. I also strongly suspect that his credentials are as simple as that he may be a younger fan who has read a lot of books and has an inclination to get very creatively imaginative. No offense meant, but his forte here is more akin to fiction than investigative reporting.
However, early on, the fallacy of this "theory" is nakedly exposed with the declaration that "It’s not very difficult to notice that all these versions sound different, which means that none of the above never actually took place." That's really quite a leap. Ever seen Akira Kurosawa's movie "Roshomon"? Different recollections do not invalidate the fact that there may indeed be some collective truths.
More importantly, I wasn't there. But there are some contradictory facts which I am very aware of:
1) Only in recent years have I heard of Jim's death having been "kept secret" for several days. I have no idea what the source of this misinfo is, but I know that on July 4, 1971, I already had heard of it. After our concert of Frank Zappa & The Mothers of Invention / Uproar at the Centre Paul Sauve in Montreal on that Sunday night, Frank and I stayed up all night discussing all sorts of things, including the irony that when I promoted him in Western Canada the previous September, Jimi Hendrix died then, and now my friend Jim was gone. The news of Jim's death was not delivered to me by The Doors office, which was closed until the following day. It had to have been on the news.
2) Perhaps it's different in other parts of the world, but I know of no Christian customs that call for burial on the third day nor that a church service is required to have an open coffin.
3) Bill Siddons may have been young, but he was of a generation which deplored both dishonesty and corrupted authority. I can't see him having been manipulated by any French officials into any conspiracy covering up any murder of Jim,
4) Jim's death was a shock to all of us. He had basically freed himself from the trap of having become a rock sex symbol and had gone to Paris excited with the artistic freedoms he now had at hand. Pamela had every right to refer to him as a writer. During his last year of life, it was clear to me that Jim's interests had moved beyond the trappings of just being a rock star. His last night in Los Angeles he told me how much he was looking forward to writing and doing more literary styled recordings and film-making as well.
Suicide was certainly out of the question. Despite the depictions of Jim as a drunkard towards the end in Oliver Stone's movie, he was sober, reflective and very observant with bigger ambitions whenever we were in contact. Yes, we shared some beers, grass and another substance which he had turned me on to, but I never saw the extraordinary out-of-it Jim of legend.
The outright speculations of Jim having been shot to death is no more than that. Speculations, from one who wasn't there and has no foundation that can support this.
Yes, I have my own suspicions of what killed Jim, but they are only that, suspicions, despite my good reasons for suspecting what I do.
"antispamnow" should apply himself to either facts or fiction that does not corrupt facts.
Please excuse any typos, I have written this straight-on late at night.
My best wishes to all,
Hank Zevallos